Anyone else crazy about Baroque music? It's all I listen to these days. I don't know why. Spent the last week pretty much only listening to Membra Jesu Nostri by Buxtehude.
Period instruments excite me. To imagine what that period's music really sounded like, it's something I feel a lot about. Sorta like a game.
Let's talk about it here, or if anyone wants recommendations I can easily come up with something.
I have nothing to say but as my current captcha is exbuthe, I wanted to post here because it's almost an anagram of Buxtehude.
Thanks for your attention.
Baroque music is pretty cool stuff. I've messed with my dad's baroque oboe, really simple instrument. And lots of fun.
Didn't know there's a baroque oboe too. That's cool, gotta look it up :D
One of the major things I like about the Baroque period is that works like Membra Jesu Nostri vs. Händel's Messiah are so very different. As I've read it the tradition for appreciating music at the time was one of the latest periods where a general respect for music of any age existed in Western society. As in, after the Baroque the 'previous generation of music' finally became seen as 'outdated' while, in that period, they might be playing 400-800 year old music at times and it'd be just as valid, just as popular.
Well, when you consider what else was going on at the time—huge developments, new ideas, a completely revamped paradigm—it only makes sense.
My dad and his friends play baroque music on recorder, and on viol. So ever since I've been young, I've been exposed to baroque music.
It really has a fascinating sound to it, that you don't get anywhere else. A baroque song often doesn't seem to make a lot of sense until you've listened to it several times over.
I showed "je nay dueul" by Alexander Agricola to a friend of mine, and he said it sounded like fractal music.
I'm really starting to like period recordings - cause of the restrictions on the instruments, there were certain ways music was written, especially for the winds and brass, that's sometimes lost in translation with modern instruments.
Also, there's nothing more satisfying than hearing a Bach fugue on a harpischord rather than piano (pianofortes at least; fortepianos do occasionally give a nice rustic feel too).
>there's nothing more satisfying than hearing...a harpsichord...
Agreed.
I had the opportunity to hear a live performance of the group "Giardino Armonico" a group dedicated mainly to Baroque pieces. They are something out of this world.
and on a side not I'm practicing a Sonata in D minor by Veracini. There are a lot of recordings of it on youtube, you should check soe of 'em.
I never understood the recent resurgence in popularity of "historically-informed" performances. IMHO instruments evolved for a reason--the newer ones were better. Using period instruments to me is like using an old version of a computer program out of nostalgia--maybe a little interesting, but there's a reason why a new version came out.
>>10
Or taking photos with a non-digital camera.
Somehow, it makes sense.
>>10
I think of it more like playing old computer games. Newer ones are technically superior, perhaps, but sometimes you can gain something by losing that.
I'm also a historical performance and Baroque nut. I was fortunate enough to play lute, archlute, Baroque guitar and bass viola da gamba at my college, and I plan to keep playing the viol.
That being said, have some Bob Barto:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=barto+weiss&search_type=&aq=f
>10 Modern instruments were altered from their older forms in a nineteenth-century craze for volume. Add volume, and you have to give up tone (example: metal violin strings are louder than traditional gut, but they sound like shit). Baroque instruments blend together more effectively, and, paired with Baroque performance techniques, like using vibrato as an ornament instead of as the norm, adds to the effect.
>13
I'd like to add that there are two schools of "early musicians" today. One school is that of historical reenactment, the second advocates the use of modern technological innovations, provided they remain true to style. I am of the latter camp, my archlute is high-tech by old standards, but it's still an archlute and not a classical guitar, harp or piano, irrelevant instruments with which modern musicians would ineptly seek to replace it. It is my opinion that while there is a time and place for historically accurate performance, strict adherence to preferences of the past is a form of Neo-Luddism. It's far more productive to, after having THOROUGHLY STUDIED forms and preferences of the past, and then to imagine oneself as a Baroque musician teleported to the future where one has access to more technology.
I hate to throw my opinion on this, but I think that metal strings are a lot better the gut strings... On certain occasions. For example: A cello with metal strings has a very nice sound compared to the rusty sound of a gut string cello, but a lute with gut strings has a very peaceful sound then a lute with metal strings.
As for me: I think playing a historical instrument is ok, but it depends. I think it's stupid to play a baroque violin over a standard violin simply for historical relevance. On the other hand I would prefer a harpsichord over a piano. I think playing older instruments are fine since it's a completely different instrument, but simply playing the same instrument but using older techniques is kind of ridiculous. As >>10 said the instruments were improved for a reason.
ALSO: Is anybody familiar with Bach's viola da gamba sonatas? They are now modernly played with a Cello and Piano instead of a Viola da Gamba and a Harpsichord. However it sounds the best the way it was intended in my opinion.